Appeal No. 98-2109
Application No. 08/500,315
We note initially that on page 11 of the brief, appellant
argues that Driver is nonanalogous art. This argument will be
given no consideration, because it is well settled that "the
question whether a reference is analogous art is irrelevant to
whether that reference anticipates." In re Schreiber, 128
F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The basis of the rejection is set forth on pages 3 and 4
of the final rejection (Paper No. 11).
Appellant argues that Driver does not anticipate claim 1
because there is no disclosure of the two limitations
underlined in the copy of the claim, supra. With regard to
the first of these limitations, i.e., the recitation "to cut a
product located upon a product support surface," the examiner
argued in the final rejection (page 7) that Driver meets this
limitation because the pipeline 30 supports the product
(liner) 35 to be cut. Appellant, on the other hand, asserts
that this limitation must be interpreted "to be a surface
which supports the product around where it is being cut,"
otherwise the limitation is superfluous (brief, page 7).
It is fundamental that during the examination of an
application, the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007